Mapping Neo-Modern and Postmodern Qur’ānic Reformist Discourse in the Intellectual Legacy of Fazlur Rahman and Mohammed Arkoun

Abstract

Renewal and Reform have been the most discussed and dominant themes of Muslim intelligentsia, as they lived through the subjection of the greater part of the Muslim world by the Western colonial powers during the 18th and 19th centuries. The intellectual discourse on reform by the early Muslim reformers pivoted to the adoption of Western science and values and to the struggle of developing a new ilm al kalām (theology) complementary to modern science and western ideologies. The subsequent reformers, however, were more critical of Western ideas of civilization. Fazlur Rahman and Mohammed Arkoun belonged to the later wave of Muslim reformist movement of the 20th century and are the most well-known trail blazers of this reformist discourse, which centered on the Qur’ān. This article provides insight into the reform strategies of Dr. Fazlur Rahman and Mohammed Arkoun by mapping out key concepts in their discourses and their influence on later generations of reformers. Fazlur Rahman identified the stagnant intellectual legacy as the sole cause of the downfall of Muslim Civilization, caused by the absence of Ijtihād (independent legal reasoning). In his opinion, blind imitation based on precedence and consensus has only created a new hierarchy of traditional ulama (religious scholar) whose retrogressive mindset monopolized the interpretation of the Qur’ān. Making the Qur’ān as the center point for reform, he advocated its rereading based on the comprehension of the élan (spirit) of the Qur’ān. Similarly, Mohammed Arkoun, being trained in postmodern literary theory, adopted post structural methods for re-reading the Qur’ānic text. Arkoun’s critique and approach is interwoven with complex terminologies. He advocated desacralizing the text and the radical rethinking of Islam as a cultural and religious system. This appraisal promotes a philosophical perspective in combination with an anthropological and historical approach. Both these reformers have their own set of advocates and detractors. Undeniably, however, as this paper argues, Arkoun’s approach of understanding the Qur’ān can disturb the conventional prevalent belief system.

1. Introduction

Reforming the Muslim tradition and societies and attempting to find the causes of the decline of Muslim cultural and political power has been the most coveted course of Muslim thought in response to the competing dominant Western worldview since the onslaught of colonial powers in the Muslim world (Ali 2004, pp. 24–26). For many reformers, the reasons were political in nature, and many others attributed it to intellectual stagnancy. A class of reformers known as Traditionalists, including Shah Wali Ullah (1703–1762) and Abdul Aziz Dihalwi in India, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab in Saudi Arabia (1703–1792), Haji Shariat Allah of Fraizi Movement in Bengal (1764–1840), Sayyed Muhammad ibn Ali al Sanusi (1787–1859) of the Sanusi Movement in North Africa, Muhammad Ahmad ibn Abdullah (1844–1885) of the Mahdi Movement in Sudan (1848–1885) and Fulani in Nigeria (1754–1817), and other similar reformers aimed at reforming religious practices and reviving the original Islam practiced by the earlier generation of Muslims (Voll 1982, pp. 87–89). Another class of Muslim intellectuals, the Modernists, looked for a synthesis of the Western systems of thought and eternal Islamic values as the foundation of reform. This class of reformers is important because they realized that the world had changed and, in order to survive and thrive in the modern world, new ways of thinking were needed. The earlier Modernists was largely apologetic (Gibb 1978, p. 74) and aimed to prove compatibility between Western ideas and Islam, and the later Modernists were more critical of the apologetic and ad hoc solutions proposed by their predecessors, and sought to address the complexities and realities of modernity and Western imperialism.

Rereading the Qur’ān in the light of modern circumstances and contexts and a rationalist understanding of Qur’ānic injunctions have been quite popular themes among many Muslim Modernists. The aim was to recognize the inherent flexibility of Islamic tradition and to replace the blind imitation of classical interpreters with Ijtihād (independent legal reasoning). Syed Ahmad Khan (1817–1898) indeed was the first person who made a case for “creating space for the interpretation of the Qur’ān in modern terms, and eradicating the superstitions so prevalent in Muslim societies” (Campanini 2009, p. 125). Muhammad Abduh (1849–1905) also prompted Muslims to give up taqlīd (imitation) and interpretation of the Qur’ān in the context of 7th century. He emphasized rational understanding of the Qur’ānic revelation in the light of modern scientific advancements and to consider its metaphorical meanings (Campanini 2009, pp. 124–26). Syed Ahmad Khan’s naturalist understanding and reforming of the exegetic principles and Muhammad Abduh’s assertion on rationalist comprehension of the Qur’ān in the light of modern and scientific discoveries were met with harsh criticism by those who saw this as a compromise on the basic tenets of Islam. However, the proposal of reforming Islam through the Qur’ān withstood the test of time. Later modernists, trained in modern Western educational institutes, were cognizant of the historical critical methods; deeply conscious of the deficit in the Muslim response to modernity, they proposed rereading and rethinking the Qur’ān and adopted methods that sought to contextualize and historicize the Qur’ān (Taji-Farouki 2006, pp. 19–22).

There have been a number of Muslim reformers and intellectuals in the 20th century who re-thought traditional methods of interpreting the Qur’ān. Among them, Amin al Khuli (1895–1966), Muhammad Ahmad Khalafallah (1916–1997), Fazlur Rahman (1919–1988), Nasr Hamid Abu Zayed (1943–2010), Nurcholish Madjid (1939–2005), Mohammed Shahrour (1938–2019) and Mohammed Arkoun (1928–2010) are noteworthy. They proposed thematic, contextualist and literary reading of Qur’ānic verses (Campanini 2009, pp. 124–26). This article, however, only focuses on Fazlur Rahman and Mohammed Arkoun and aims to map out the reformist methods of both of these reformers based on their approach toward the Qur’ān, followed by a discussion and analysis.

The influence of Fazlur Rahman is far reaching among contemporary intellectuals of the Muslim world, ranging from the advocates of Islamic Feminism to proponents of Liberation theologies. On the other hand, Mohammed Arkoun has been widely discussed for using postmodern literary methods and anthropological approaches in the Qur’ānic interpretation.

A plethora of literature is being written on Dr. Fazlur Rahman’s reformist ideas. He has explained his approaches on revelation and prophecy in his key discourses Islam and Modernity (1982) and Major Themes of Qur’ān (1980). Classifying it as historicist, Tamara Sonn (1991) analyzed the Islamic methodology of Fazlur Rahman and its application on political systems (Sonn 1991, p. 227). For her, the significance of Fazlur Rahman’s work lies in his effort to devise a way to articulate those principles which mark any society as Islamic (Sonn 1991, p. 229). Denny (1989) acknowledged the significant impact of Rahman’s ideas on regions as diverse as North America, Egypt, Jordan, the West Bank and Pakistan (Denny 1989, p. 101). Akbar (2020) also underscored the importance of his contextualist methodology in shaping the ideas of contemporary reformers advocating social justice (Akbar 2020). Abdullah Saeed, who is the most prolific advocate of contextualist methodology, hailed the approach of Fazlur Rahman as methodological innovation helping to resolve the ethico-legal content of the Qur’ān (Saeed 2006b, p. 4) because it takes social change into account in order to sustain the relation between the Qur’ān and Muslims of today (Saeed 2006b, p. 4). Harvey (2020) established a parallel between the ideas of Taha Abderrahmane and Fazlur Rahman, as they made ethics the key content of their reform projects. Waugh (1999) also discussed the legacies of Fazlur Rahman for American Muslims at length.

The complex terminologies derived from post-structuralism and the anthropological background of Arkoun’s ideas make his discourses less comprehensible. Moreover, most of his works were originally written in French, which were later translated in various languages. His own writings meticulously discussed his approach in The Notion of Revelation (1988), Unthought in The Contemporary Islamic Thought (2002) and Rethinking Islam Today (2003). An important work by Ursula Günther outlined the interconnected concepts of Arkoun’s thought within the context of his approach to the Qur’ān at length. (Günther 2006, p. 127). For her, Arkoun’s search for an alternate new understanding as a counterpoint to the orthodox version led him to build an edifice of ideas (Günther 2006, p. 126). He developed his ideas largely on a theoretical level and did not provide any system which could help apply his ideas to practical contexts (Günther 2006, p. 126). Later, in her obituary for Arkoun, Günther described him as an intellectual who devoted his life on rethinking Islam as a religious and cultural system: “Since he never accepted the notion of an ultimate truth he pleaded for a radical change of perspective in order to pre-pare the ground for an exhaustive and inclusive vision of Islam, which no longer excludes what has been banished to the realm of the unthought and unthinkable—categories he introduced into Islamic studies” (Günther, close up, p. 65). Katharina Völker (2014) asserted the importance of Arkoun for his critique on Islamic reason (Völker 2014). Robert D. Lee (Lee 1997, p. 144) indicated the obvious impact of Max Weber (1864–1920), Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) and Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) and the indirect influence of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) and Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) on Arkoun’s thought. He evaluated Arkoun’s search for authenticity as a search for foundations in collective memory (Lee 1997, p. 146). Abdou Filali-Ansary described Arkoun as the one who advocated the supremacy of science over myth and belief (Filali-Ansary 2012, p. 9). This brief literature review reveals ideological trajectories taken by Fazlur Rahman, who presented the neo-modernists facet of reformist approach, and Arkoun, who represented the postmodern aspect of understanding and interpreting the Quran, which is discussed comprehensively in the following pages.

2. Fazlur Rahman (1919–1988)—Contextualizing Interpretation

Fazlur Rahman Malik, a widely quoted, influential modernist of Pakistani origin, devoted his whole life to the study of Modern Islam and chalked out possible courses for reform and renewal. His upbringing in a traditional setup (his father was a traditional ālim in Hazara) and then his education at Oxford under the supervision of Hamilton A. R. Gibb (Akbar 2020, p. 131) provided him with a wider context to study the problematizing issues of contemporary Muslims.

2.1. Analysis of the Muslim Downfall

Rahman believed that the causes of the downfall and suffering of Muslims could not be attributed to the encroachment of colonial Western powers, but to the intellectual legacy (Rahman 1982, pp. 2–4), i.e., the imitation of inherited practices and thinking defined by the orthodoxy, and an assessment of this orthodoxy was required. In his critical appraisal of the intellectual legacy of Islam, Rahman called into question the traditional tools and ways of interpretation of the Qur’ān. For him, these methods were then outdated and did not cater to the needs of modern times (Rahman 1970, p. 329). In order to make Islam practical for future times, the application of a new hermeneutical stance to the whole Islamic corpus of knowledge is indispensable (Rahman 1982, pp. 2–4). Muslims can free themselves from the burdens of the past through the critical study of history, and this would allow them to have a chance to differentiate the essentials of the faith from all unnecessary and redundant later additions. In a series of articles and books, such as Islam and Modernity: Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition (Rahman 1982), Major Themes of the Qur’ān (Rahman 1980b) and Islamic Methodology in History (Rahman 2009), Rahman outlined his “neo-modernist” hermeneutical approach “to recover the ethico-moral spirit, or ratio legis (‘illat al-shari’), of Qur’ānic legislation by carefully attending to what he saw as its conditioned articulation in the specific historical context of 7th-century Arabia” (Rahman 1980a, p. 242; Ohlander 2009, p. 622). Fazlur Rahman placed himself within the tradition of Muslim modernists because, for him,

“Muslim modernists “recovered the integral Islamic legacy of the earliest days, and, having adopted certain key modern Western institutions and integrated them with Islam as being Islamic par excellence, offered Islam as a successful substitute for and the only viable alternative to the secular West as this Secularism began to show grave cracks in its moral and human structure”

(Rahman 1980a, p. 243).

However, he was also critical of the early modernists in terms of their apologetic approach toward Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), their acceptance of many orthodox assertions and claims, their failure to apply the ethical vision of the Qur’ān, and their reliance on Western models that created space for fundamentalism (Rahman 1980a, p. 244).

2.2. Reform Propositions: Emphasizing the Ethical and Humane Framework

Fazlur Rahman’s humanist approach in redefining Qur’ānic hermeneutics is fundamental to his methodological proposition for reform. In outlining the methodology for the correct interpretation of the Qur’ān, Fazlur Rahman re-addressed the role of the Prophet (PBUH) and revelation, reconsidered the authenticity of Hadīth and the role of Sunnah, and asserted the rekindling and reinstatement of ijtihād (Rahman 1979, pp. 30–32). He was critical of the piecemeal treatment of Qur’ānic text, making it a book of legal codes and theological guidelines and subsiding its moral aim (Rahman 1982, p. 4). He believed that Qur’ānic teachings are functional and practice-oriented. He censured the classical theologians for ignoring the nature of man and his function, and for being too occupied with the nature of God (Rahman 1971, p. 97). He indicated that this fragmentary attitude toward the Qur’ān led to a gap between the spirit of the Qur’ān and Muslims, which he referred to as the “élan (spirit) of the Qur’ān” (Rahman 1982, pp. 4–9). To bridge this gap, he differentiated between “historical Islam” and “normative Islam” (Rahman 1982, pp. 7–8, 141). Contending against the literalist and atomistic method of interpretation of exegetes (Rahman 1966, p. 120), Fazlur Rahman advocated the thematic-contextualist approach of interpretation.

Contrary to traditional perception of Qur’ān’s understanding as immutable for all times, he took a non-traditional stance by stating that the Qur’ānic revelation was unfolded in a specific socio-historical context of the Arabs of the Prophet’s (PBUH) time to answer the questions or modify the opinions and religious assertions (Rahman 1979, pp. 31–32). He argued that Muslims must identify the compulsory features in the revelation that are meant to transcend the specific context in which they were revealed (Rahman 1982, pp. 4–9) and that the historical context surrounding a specific revelation, known as Asbāb al-Nuzūl, should be used to examine specific pronouncements and to ensure that they are keeping with the élan of the Qur’ān (Rahman 1982). To do this, he proposed a comprehensive study of the Qur’ān to ascertain its principles and objectives, which allow recapturing the élan of the Qur’ān and help in the resurrection of the original thrust of the Islamic message, free from the accumulated debris of tradition, precedent and culture of the past millennium (Koshul 1999, p. 46).

2.3. Stance on Revelation

In this novel approach toward revelation, he reconsidered the role of the Prophet (PBUH) in the process of revelation. The Qur’ān was certainly a divine vision, but it was actualized in the mind of the Prophet (PBUH). He and the early Muslim community took active participation during this process. Deriving from the term Rūhul-Quds (The Holy Spirit), Rahman maintained that the spirit is not a physical entity or an outer mediator; instead, “the ideas and the words are born in the mind of the Prophet (PBUH) (Rahman 1980b, pp. 75–76; Saeed 2006a, p. 46)”. This was a contrasting position to the traditional agreement on the status of the Prophet (PBUH) as a recipient of the words of God via Archangel Gabriel during the process of revelation (Rahman 1980b, pp. 75–78).

2.4. Double Movement Theory of Qur’ānic Interpretation

In his framework of reform based on comprehensive Qur’ānic Hermeneutics, Fazlur Rahman proposed the “Double Movement Theory,” (Rahman 1982, pp. 5–6) which aims at drawing general principles from the Qur’ān. The first movement consists of two steps: in the first step, the purposes of the Qur’ānic injunctions are considered in the light of their socio-historical contexts, and in the second step, a coherent system of general ethical principles is extracted. The second movement actualizes the framework by reading the Qur’ān as speaking to the contemporary age (Rahman 1982, pp. 6–7; Rahman 1980a, p. 244). From this “Double Movement Theory,” one can comprehend the élan of the Qur’ān, i.e., “the stress on socio-economic justice and essential human egalitarianism” (Rahman 1982, p. 19). Rahman contended that the entire Qur’ān could be seen as “directed towards the creation of meaningful and positive equality among human beings” (Rahman 1982, p. 5), and that the Islamic purpose cannot be realized until genuine freedom for human beings is restored and freedom from all forms of exploitation are assured. He argued that the Prophet (PBUH) was an embodiment of Qur’ānic élan, and he also strived toward building a society based on morals and social justice (Saeed 2006a, p. 51). He argued that all values that are properly moral have an extra-historical, “transcendental being”, and their location in history does not exhaust their practical impact or meaning. True appreciation and comprehension of these values come in their placement in the Qur’ānic worldview and thus require an integrated approach (Rahman 1970, p. 329; Rahman 1982, pp. 2–3). This hermeneutic endeavor of understanding the élan of the Qur’ān will lead to formulating Qur’ān-centered ethics and ultimately a society based on social justice. Dr Basit Bilal Koshul commented,

“The implication of Fazlur Rahman’s proposed methodology are clear—the specific legal injunctions in the Qur’ān that do not conform with the élan (spirit) of the Qur’ān were meant only for the historical period in which the Qur’ān was revealed but are no longer binding in the modern setting (Shah 2006, pp. 881–82). This principle of negating the validity of specific Qur’ānic injunction under the pretext of giving precedence to the élan of the Qur’ān allows virtually unlimited freedom to do away with any specific Qur’ānic injunction. The relationship between this freedom and making Islamic thought conform to modern thought becomes clear as well”

(Koshul 1999, p. 47).

2.5. Ethical Theory of Islam and Hadith Corpus

Fazlur Rahman’s approach led him to adopt a skeptical attitude toward the Hadīth corpus (Rahman 1962). He believed that, in order to reclaim the moral principles of the Qur’ān, ethical theory should be based only on the Qur’ān as it interprets itself. He encouraged the reading of Hadīth with historical objectivity and careful implication while using the understanding of the Qur’ān. Rahman took the stance that the validity and authenticity of prophetic traditions should be determined by their consistency with the Qur’ānic principles. He also broadened the traditional definition of the term “Sunnah” and considered it as something innovative, something that is inevitably not repeatable because history never repeats itself (Rahman 1962). He argued that, after the Prophetic (PBUH) times, value additions were made to the Sunnah by early Muslim communities in response to various challenges of the time, and these additions and modifications still persist. Rahman used the term “Living Sunnah” to refer to these value additions made by the Muslim community to face the challenges of every time period (Rahman 1962, pp. 3–4).

2.6. Call to Ijtihād

Fazlur Rahman criticized the stagnation created in Muslim societies due to the closing of the gates of Ijtihād. In his opinion, this blind imitation based on precedence and consensus created a new hierarchy of traditional ulamas who occupied the position of interpreting and elaborating the Qur’ān. Due to their attitude, Muslim masses stopped turning to the Qur’ān for guidance: “Consequently, the Qur’ān became just a holy book to be praised for its eloquent style and inimitable grammatical aspects”. The double movement theory, while taking social conditions and circumstances into account, will rejuvenate the true spirit of ijtihād (Koshul 1999, p. 42).

2.7. Reform Roadmap—Summary

Rahman, in his reform roadmap and contextualist method, did not provide any concrete and systematic analysis of the contemporary Muslim world (Ebrahim 2000, p. 24). He, however, had attempted to discuss Imān, Islam, Taqwa, (Rahman 1983) Insān, (Rahman 1966, 1967) Shūra, (Rahman 1981) Hudūd (Rahman 1965) Riba (Rahman 1964) and family laws to illustrate his approach. These discussions are insightful yet often all too brief and do not provide the sustained holistic analysis required by his double movement theory.

Fazlur Rahman’s work despite its non-traditional position on revelation remained committed to Orthodoxy. Pervez Manzoor comments: He was, despite his much misunderstood radicalism, modernism and westernism, very much part the Islamic tradition, where the immanent text of the Qur’ān is taken as indicative of the transcendence will of God. (Apparently, language, text, is deemed more transcendent than person, body, and accepted as a more appropriate medium of divine revelation.) For all his intellectual boldness, recklessness to his detractors, there can be no denying that FR consciously and willingly, indeed enthusiastically, joined the orthodox enterprise of moving from text to hukm, from immanent language to transcendent values… The paradox of FR’s scholarship is that while he stood firm in his commitment to the historicity of the text, he readily abandoned its interpretations by the tradition. In saving the text, he had to damn the history of its reading. But then this is the power (I’jāz) of the Text: it creates its own context, prevents the closure of its meaning and forever remains open to new interpretations. It outlives and transcends its history

(Manzoor 2006).

Fazlur Rahman was an enlightenment modernist and Muslim traditionalist who, despite being committed to outline a methodological approach to provide an alternative framework to derive the ethico-legal content of the Qur’ān, considered multiple readings and interpretations of Qur’ān essential. The postmodern challenge to religion and Islam was not Fazlur Rahman’s major interest.

Although his methodological proposition falls into deconstruction, he did not talk or use the post-structural literary terms in his analysis or proposals. This is where Arkoun emerged as a key-thinker in outlining his reform proposition based on postmodern literary premises. Postmodern theory has played an influential role for him in mounting critiques of enlightenment ideals, colonialism (post-colonial debates) and Orientalism.

2.8. Mohammed Arkoun (1928–2010)—Desacrilizing the Text

Mohammed Arkoun, a Berber by origin, an Algerian and a Francophone, studied and taught in Paris for most of his life. The biographical features of his life set the pattern of his thought, which is quite evident in his discourses that traverse the borders between these cultures. His reformist project is inspired by the French school of poststructuralist deconstructionism that played an important role in escalating a critique against Enlightenment and Modernity ideals (Günther 2006, p. 131; Martin and Woodward 1997, p. 206; Fakhri 2004, pp. 394–96). Inspired by the Western intellectual tradition of historicity in Paul Ricoure (1913–2005), Arkoun’s assessment of modernity and Islam is not a general critique of religion based on traditional religious arguments but rather on postmodern critical theory. It is the unique feature of his thought that he applied modern social science methods to the analysis of Islam to build up his own premise of Islamic reason. His critique includes the radical rethinking of Islam as a cultural and religious system. Mohammed Arkoun was acutely critical of European colonialism and Orientalism on the one hand (Arkoun 2003, p. 19), and on the other, as a Muslim, he was self-critical of the Islamic response to modernity. Like Fazlur Rahman, he was also concerned with the hermeneutics of sacred texts, and for this, he adopted a historical, philosophical and anthropological approach (Günther 2006, pp. 126–27; Schawi 2004).

Arkoun critiqued traditional understandings of religion and the Qur’ān, arguing that believers in monotheistic religions should approach the question of meaning not from a perspective of transcendence, but in the light of historical forces that shape and transform the most sacred values of that religion. He referred to these religions as “societies of book/Book” (Arkoun 2003, pp. 30–31), and argued that Holy Scriptures such as the Qur’ān and Bible should be open to historical, sociological and anthropological analyses, as well as to all sacralizing and transcending interpretations produced by traditional reasoning. He advocated “demystification and demythologization” (Arkoun 2019, pp. 35–36) of the phenomenon of the Book/book, but not in the way of biblical criticism which destroyed the sanctity of the sacred texts of Judaism and Christianity in the 19th and early 20th century.

2.9. Proposing a Radical Conceptual Framework

Arkoun’s conceptual framework of rethinking Islam (Arkoun 2002, p. 9; Arkoun 2003, pp. 20–22, 28–31) is imbued with various interrelated and interwoven terms, such as Qur’ānic fact/event, Islamic fact/event, Islamic Reason, thinkable, unthinkable, unthought and imaginaire (imaginary) (Arkoun 2003, pp. 28–31). In his works, The Unthought in Contemporary Islamic Thought (2002) and Islam: To Reform or to Subvert (2010), he discussed these themes at length and characterized the crisis of contemporary Islamic thought in terms of the thinkable and the unthinkable, or the conflict between what is thought along orthodox or authoritative lines and what is excluded as intellectually or politically subversive (Arkoun 2002, p. 9; 2003, pp. 20–22, 28–31).

Unthought and unthinkable cannot be understood without considering the orthodox understanding of truth and dogmatic enclosure. This is because orthodox discourses laid down the limits of the domain of the thinkable, fixing simultaneously the domain of the unthought and unthinkable (Arkoun 2003, p. 21; Günther 2006, p. 147). These are inextricably linked with the Qur’ānic and Islamic fact/event on the one hand (and therefore with the notion of orthodoxy) and, on the other hand, with the universally applicable historical category of the imaginaire (imaginary) (Günther 2006, p. 147).

2.10. Deconstructing Orthodoxy and Tradition

Orthodoxy, in his vision, is no more than an official religion resulting from the collaboration of a majority of so-called ‘ulama’ within the state. It is a system of values that functions primarily to guarantee the protection and the security of a particular group (Günther 2006, p. 139). Arkoun asserted that religious orthodoxy plays an important role in monopolizing the definition and interpretation in regard to sacred texts and for establishing the interconnection of theology. He asserted that the phenomenon of orthodoxy is responsible for the dogmatic enclosure (Günther 2006, p. 132) and logocentric version of religion (Arkoun 2003, pp. 21–22; 2010, pp. 9–20). For him, dogmatic enclosure depicts a decisive break within the history of Islamic thought, putting an end to the innovative period of philosophical thought while contributing to the closure of bab al-ijtihād (door of Ijtihad) (Günther 2006, p. 132; Arkoun 2010, p. 77). This dogmatic enclosure was on articles of faith, themes and any system of belief and unbelief which was not allowed to operate freely “without any competing action from inside to outside” (Günther 2006, p. 132).

Arkoun argued that the deconstruction of orthodoxy is crucial and pivotal for rethinking and reforming the theology of Islam (Arkoun 2003, pp. 22, 27; Günther 2006, p. 138). He believed that orthodoxy is not just limited to the field of religion but also influences language, literature and historiography. He argued that religious orthodoxy holds a key position in monopolizing the interpretation of sacred texts and institutionalizing theology with ethico-judicial concepts leading to dogmatic enclosure (Arkoun 2010, p. 77). It shapes the imaginaire in relation to the Qur’ān and Sunnah and puts a limit on Islamic reason (Günther 2006, p. 142). To deconstruct orthodoxy, he suggested that the notion of revelation should be subjected to historicity and that a methodological approach that thoroughly analyzes linguistic, semiotic, historical and anthropological aspects should be adopted (Arkoun 2002, p. 73). This would open up new space for thought and interpretation and prepare the way for a plurality of readings of the Qur’ān and an understanding of religious anthropology (Günther 2006, p. 141). He also proposed the concept of the Qur’ānic and Islamic event/fact, which differentiates between the period of revelation and the consolidation of the new religion. A Qur’ānic event for Arkoun was a period of revelation and consolidation of new religion shaped by Qur’ānic discourse, which ended with the death of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in 632, and an Islamic fact/event is the fixture of revelation as a written document resulting in a determination of the reading, which has been in effect since 661. He believed that the concept of the Islamic fact/event recognizes that Islam has been legitimized to maintain power for ideological and political purposes (Arkoun 2010, pp. 252–62).1

Arkoun argued that the transformation of the Qur’ānic fact/event into the Islamic fact/event hides three turning points in the development of the Qur’ān. These turning points alter the boundaries among the thinkable, unthought and unthinkable. The first turning point is the revelation of the Qur’ān, which is the Qur’ānic fact/event or Qur’ānic discourse (610–623 CE). The second turning point is the collection and canonization of the musḥaf (632–936 CE), which is the official closed corpus and the beginning of the Islamic fact/event or Islamic discourse. The third turning point is the period of orthodoxy (936–...), which is the formation of a new imagination within the Muslim community and the shaping of the thinkable, the unthinkable and unthought, as well as Islamic reason (Günther 2006, p. 141; Arkoun 2010, pp. 52–62).

In the proposal of deconstruction of orthodoxy, comprehension of the thinkable, the unthinkable and the unthought are important. The thinkable represents the ideas and concepts that are accepted and considered valid within a particular tradition of thought, the unthinkable represents ideas and concepts that are actively forbidden to be thought or expressed, and the unthought represents ideas and concepts that have been excluded, marginalized, forgotten or rejected (Arkoun 2002, p. 17).

The interplay of social and political forces within a culture determines the boundaries of the thinkable, the unthinkable and the unthought. In the case of Islamic culture, classical exegesis has played a decisive role in determining the thinkable and the unthinkable, with both historiography and usūl-al Tafsīr (Principles and Methodology of Interpretation of Qur’ān) widening the sphere of the unthinkable through selection and exclusion, resulting in a controlled and fixed interpretation of history within the bounds of orthodoxy. Arkoun’s work focused on the question of the status of truth and its relationship with the creation of Islamic reason and its influence on Islamic thought and the imaginaire (imaginary) of the Muslim community. He argued that a deconstruction of this process is necessary for rethinking Islamic thought and disclosing the realm of the unthought and unthinkable.

Arkoun’s concept of imaginaire is another important tool for deconstruction, as it is closely related to Qur’ānic and Islamic fact/event as well as with the unthought and unthinkable (Arkoun 2003, p. 28). It demonstrates how these concepts have shaped the understanding and interpretation of reality. According to Arkoun, the imaginaire describes the realm of reception and combination of images and imaginations that are accepted within a given social group sharing the same historical context (Arkoun 2002, pp. 77–79). It allows explanations of the usual operations of mythologization, socialization, mystification, ideologistation, and even transcedentalization that social actors support according to their positions and roles within society (Arkoun 2002, p. 140). He gave the example of the society of Medina, where religious consciousness is shaped by the paradigm of the ideal society, as perceived in the historical experience of Medina, which in turn underwent interpretations by the orthodoxy. This imagination is so strong that it does not make any difference whether the imagination of the ideal society corresponds to reality at the time or not (Arkoun 2003). Arkoun contended that, as long as the imaginaire is taken as reality and not identified as imagination about reality, there is a risk of it becoming an instrument of politics (Arkoun 2002, pp. 77–79).

2.11. Conceptualizing Qur’ānic Discourse

Besides deconstructing the notions of revelation, orthodoxy and restructuring the imaginaire, Arkoun explained the tools required to conceptualize the Qur’ānic discourse: “(1) its metaphoric organization; (2) its semiotic structure; (3) its intertextuality.” The orthodox exegetes completely ignored these tools in their interpretation of the Qur’ānic discourse. Their failure to do so led to literal meanings and orthodox interpretations, producing societies that looked to the past for seeking solutions to challenges that were contemporary and new. This reconsideration was unfortunately ignored by orthodox exegetes (Arkoun 2002, p. 80).2 Semiotic analysis is still of primary importance for him, as “It provides a unique opportunity to practice an excellent methodological exercise designed to master all the linguistic levels through which meaning is generated”(Arkoun 2002, p. 81).

2.12. Summarizing Arkoun’s Reform Vision

Arkoun was obsessed with establishing a connection among language, thinking and history to understand the Qur’ān. He maintained that the Qur’ān is a combination of words, language, cultural and religious phenomena that arise from its own conditions and circumstances, and that it cannot produce meaning outside of its context. Therefore, it is important to create a structuralized awareness of this relationship in order to fully understand the Qur’ān and Islamic thought.

Arkoun’s unconventional analysis and critique of orthodoxy is quite radical, as it demands the radical revision of reason and inclusion of Muslims into the “global critical theory of knowledge and values” (Günther 2006, p. 153). His critique of Islamic reason (which is inextricably linked to a rethinking of Islamic thought) demands the deconstruction of centuries of Islamic thought, which requires a considerable expenditure of energy, time and familiarity with the Islamic–Occidental–Christian history, as well as recent developments and discourses in the field of humanities and social sciences. His project of deconstruction requires attention to the application of linguistics, semiotics and critical discourse analysis while interpreting the Qur’ān (Günther 2006, p. 153). For him, classical exegesis must be revisited in order to disclose its contribution to the formation and consolidation of the imaginaire, as well as the unthought and unthinkable (Günther 2006, p. 153).

The work of Arkoun resonates with Derridean Deconstruction. Although deconstruction claims the autonomy of the text, for some Muslim scholars, this autonomy is nothing except reading the text with its internal meanings and texts. On the other hand, it also challenges the interpretations of foundational texts of Muslims by learned scholars. Elemessiri described this free play of the sign as negative, which leaves texts merely black and blank:

“Once the signs are emancipated from the transcendental signified, every sign would refer to another sign, which in turn, would refer to a third. Deconstruction vertigo would then begin. Limitless interpretation, an unrestricted semantic play that is no longer anchored in any signified, would be the result. Texts would become mere, black on blank, ‟or like the words in a dictionary where every word to another with no centre to stop the play of the sign, “the dance of the pen”. Everything is everything else, and everything is nothing else. Or, as Derrida put it in his inflated and unnecessarily convoluted style. “What is not deconstruction? Everything of course. What is deconstruction? Nothing, of course”

(Elmessiri 1997, p. 11).

3. Discussion and Analysis

Fazlur Rahman is considered to be one of the most influential Muslim scholars of the 20th century, and his ideas and methods continue to be widely discussed and debated in the Muslim world today. His work has had a significant impact on contemporary Muslim intellectuals and academicians, particularly in the areas of Islamic theology, law and reform. In Indonesia and Turkey, for example, reforms have been proposed based on his thought (Koç 2012, pp. 16–17; El-Affendi 2009, pp. 32–33). Additionally, scholars such as Nurcholish Majid (1939–2005), (Saeed 2006a, p. 39) Nasr Hamid Abu Zaid (1943–2010), Abdul Karim Soroush (1945–) and Abdullah Saeed have all benefited from his contextualist approach to center their reform projects on the humanistic orientation and ethico-legal framework of Islam. (Akbar 2020, pp. 135–39) Fazlur Rahman’s ideas have also had a significant impact on Islamic Feminism. His thematic contextualist approach has been used by many feminist scholars such as Asma Barlas (b. 1950-) and Amina Wadud (b. 1952–), who have argued that traditional Islamic texts must be understood within their historical context and that their meaning can be reinterpreted to support the rights and equality of women (Akbar 2020, p. 142; Saeed 2006a, p. 39; Hidayatullah 2014, pp. 87–90). Additionally, liberation theologians such as South African Farid Esack (b. 1955-)have also rooted their arguments on Fazlur Rahman’s ideas. (Akbar 2020, p. 141). Therefore, in this respect, the ideas of Rahman are more readily acceptable to Muslim scholars worldwide.

Mohammed Arkoun, on the other hand, shares the fate of all thinkers who challenge the power of tradition and whose ideas are considered too radical for their times. His ideas on non-traditional approaches to Qur’ānic interpretation and his coinage of terms such as thinkable, unthought and imaginaire have been seen as quite fascinating and highlight the inherent problems in classical Islamic reasoning. However, at the same time, his “complex and elusive expressions, the abundant terminology and the lack of systematization” (Günther 2006, p. 137) make it difficult to comprehend his thought. Arkoun’s hostility toward traditional Islamic and confrontational engagement and his condemnation of all modern Islamic trends can be seen as “du combat” (Campanini 2009). Arkoun’s ideas are limited in their ability to bring change in the traditional Islamic mindset, as changing minds require change in socio-political and ideological relationships in society, and it is not just a literary exercise. Intellectuals must interpret the requirements of the masses and lead them accordingly, rather than living in the “ivory tower” of their own ideas (Campanini 2009, p. 127). Despite this, he is held in high esteem (Salvatore 1997, pp. 248–49; Watt 2013, pp. 01, 68) among scholars. Whenever there is talk on non-traditional approaches to Qur’ānic interpretations, Arkoun’s name is often mentioned, and his ideas continue to be studied and debated.

Fazlur Rahman and Arkoun both wanted the revival of Islamic thought, culture and civilization but differed in their methodological approaches. Arkoun’s approach desacralizes the entirety of prophetic tradition, text and all prophets (Arkoun 1988, pp. 63–66). He argued that Islam is not a standalone tradition, but rather one that emerged in a specific historical and cultural context. Arkoun’s focus is on subverting rather than reforming thought, which is a more radical approach than that proposed by Fazlur Rahman.

Despite their differing approaches to reform, Fazlur Rahman and Mohammed Arkoun were both concerned about the intellectual stagnation of Islam and sought to reconcile and harmonize tradition with contemporary realities. However, in this effort, it is tradition that is mostly compromised in favor of modernity and postmodern paradigms. They were critical of orthodoxy and asserted the reconsideration of notions of revelation and prophecy (Rahman 1980b, pp. 75–76; Saeed 2006a, p. 46; Arkoun 2010, pp. 252–62) and appreciated the rationalism of the Mutazilites. Fazlur Rahman, however, criticized them for taking extreme rational positions (Saeed 2006a, p. 42).

Intending to bring Islamic thought into ‘Qur’ānique’ discourse, Arkoun and Fazlur Rahman kept all of it open to various readings and different understandings. For new hermeneutics of the Qur’ān, Fazlur Rahman proposed the concept of the “double movement” interpretation of Islam, which involved a critical reinterpretation of traditional Islamic texts and a re-evaluation of traditional Muslim practices in the light of modern knowledge and values (Rahman 1982). Mohammed Arkoun, on the other hand, developed his own method of the “circle of language-history thinking”, which aims to study the historico-linguistic context of Islamic texts and the historical evolution of Islam to understand the development of Islamic thought and the potential for its modernization. He emphasized that the Qur’ān is not only a sacred text but also a cultural and historical product that reflects the values, beliefs and realities of society at that time. Moreover, the compilation of Qur’ān in Musḥaf was a result of cultural, political and ideological forces. In his words, “The collection of the Qur’ān into a physical, commonly used book (Mushaf), conditioned entirely by imperfect human procedures (e.g., oral transmission; use of an imperfect graphic form; conflicts between clans and parties; positions of Companions (sahaba); and unreported readings), of an exhaustive Revelation given in the Qur’ān, and of a direct authentic human access to this transcendental, divine speech” (Arkoun 1988, p. 65). Fazlur Rahman, with a similar perspective, established his position on this: “…It is my firm belief that modem Muslims must study the “occasions” because it is there that the dynamics of faith are found. The rationales, the reasons behind the laws, are the essence of the revelations’. Once one had determined the “essence of the revelations,” one could extrapolate how God wants the revelation to be understood today. If one accepts that God revealed His Word at specific times and places, then one has also to accept that interpretations of revelation are also subject to specific times and places. The Muslim scholar has the task of re-examining each piece of revelation within its precise historical context, determining its import, and then reformulating it in ways appropriate to present circumstances. This entire undertaking must be based on a clear understanding of the overall spirit of the Qur’ān as well as the dynamics of today’s complex society” (Rahman, Chicago Sun-Times, “Collapse of Islamic Fundamentalism Seen”, 31 March 1979).

The very concept that Islam needs some kind of reform is still anathema to most traditional scholars and the laity alike. For them, the challenge is to conform modern life with the teachings of the Qur’ān and Sunnah (not vice versa). The renewed focus on the scholarship of the Qur’ān mainly inspired from Western theories is often viewed with suspicion by traditional Muslim scholars, as they believe that the application of literary criticism and other hermeneutic approaches to the Qur’ān by non-Muslim scholars who do not regard it as sacred may lead to a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the text, and for them, modern Muslim scholars using these approaches are applying Western methods. Some argue that boundaries should be set in order to protect the sacredness of the Qur’ān and ensure that it is studied and interpreted in a way that is faithful to traditional Islamic teachings and practices. However, this approach can also be problematic, as Muslim scholars who attempt to apply Western constructs to Islamic texts often reach only a small subset of like-minded thinkers and fail to speak to the masses. It would be better that such scholars start with the Muslim historical experience and not appear to remodel it solely on Western paradigms.

Ironically, this search for the original faith led to the repudiation of most traditional concepts, such as the ideas of Rahman and Arkoun, which invited critique from traditional circles. The real issue, how to respond to Western modernity, remained a challenge. What is obvious is that, not only did they create a rift with the Islamic past, but they also created conflicts for the present, with no clear solutions or consensus in sight.

It is important to note that the relationship between the study of the Qur’ān in Western academic circles and the Muslim world is complex, and the question of how to reconcile the two is ongoing. The Muslim world is trying to construct its own future based on its own truths, and how it emerges from this infatuation with the past is yet to be seen.

It is true that the appeal to the Qur’ānic text remains strong in multiple domains, particularly in political fields, social structures, civil and human rights debates, etc. This appeal will remain strong because of the political failures of Muslim societies, where post-colonial rulers have hijacked the state to suit their personal ambitions. The Muslim world is in a time capsule and is far from having a successful modern Muslim state representative, working toward material prosperity and the political empowerment of the people.

4. Conclusions

Fazlur Rahman and Mohammed Arkoun were two important Muslim thinkers of the 20th century who shared a common concern about the intellectual stagnation of Islam and sought to reconcile and harmonize tradition with modernity. Rahman proposed the concept of the “double movement” interpretation of Islam, which involved a critical reinterpretation of traditional Islamic texts and a re-evaluation of traditional Muslim practices in the light of modern knowledge and values. Arkoun, meanwhile, developed his own method of “circle of language-history thinking”, which aimed to study the historical–linguistic context of Islamic texts and the historical evolution of Islam to understand the development of Islamic thought and the potential for its modernization.

Although Rahman’s approach is more readily acceptable to Muslim scholars, nonetheless, Arkoun’s ideas are more radical and confrontational toward traditional Islamic thought, therefore making it difficult for them to be more broadly accepted by the majority of traditionalist scholars and the Muslim community in general. Despite their very different approaches to reformation, Rahman and Arkoun were critical of the orthodoxy and emphasized that the concepts of revelation and prophecy should be reconsidered. Both appreciated the rationalism of the Mutazilites. Their ideas and methods continue to be widely discussed and debated in the Muslim world today, with many modern Muslim intellectuals and academicians finding inspiration from their work. The legacy of both these men continues to shape the intellectual landscape of Islam in the 21st century.